Posted
by
timothyon Monday August 26, 2002 @01:03PM
from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.

Rio writes: "A Local6.com article tells us about a database that contains a list of people who police believe are likely to break the law. It features names, addresses and photographs of potential suspects --many of whom have clean slates. Since the system was introduced in Wilmington in June, most of the 200 people included in the file have been minorities from poor, high-crime neighborhoods."

We could save a whole lot of trouble by having everyone chained up and electronically monitored at birth. We could most likely achieve a zero percent crime rate. We've just got to find someone that everyone trusts to monitor the system and administer electric shocks to those suspected of contemplating bad thoughts. Someone pure of heart. We better get voting, ideally using some of those ultra secure secret electronic voting machines..

This already happens in the UK, under the mental health act, a person can be detained for up to 28 days to "protect themselves or others" and longer if during those 28 days psychologists determine that the person requires medical help.

Yes. Interview. But how frequently do they second guess? Does the second know in advance the verdict of first?

In the US it is (or used to be) quite difficult to get out of the mental hospital. I think that they cut the funding, though, so that even really crazy people can't get committed. So they end up in jail, instead. The prison industries can find a use for them. At $.12/hour. (I wonder how quickly the prisons will empty when robots get cheaper? [But could they get *that* cheap?])

"how long till the suspected criminals-to-be are arrested "just in case"?"

THAT is just a shockingly short step from this... Liberty and security...

You know, as a moral conservative (who is a social libertarian), I WANT to like the police. I really do. They have a job I would not want. They deal with people I do not want to deal with.

But with this sort of thing, and incidents like the Houston PD stormtrooperaid on kids at a K-Mart http://66.70.240.173/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1598 (discussed on my site, several news articles linked to there), I don't trust them...

I'm beginning to believe that there is little difference between the police AND the criminals anymore. And that is scary, when you consider how much more militarized the police become each year...

Here's some advice for the law enforcement establishement on how to deal with crime (since they seem to have forgotten how)

1. The best way to PREVENT crime is to be visible in places where crime is a possibility. This means VISIBLE patrols, not unmarked cars cowering in a blind curve on the highway that goes downhill looking for speeders.

2. Though you'd think otherwise by where you see the most cops, MOST CRIME DOES NOT HAPPEN ON HIGHWAYS! They happen down in the city.

3. Though it's preferable to deter crime (see visible patrols), when crime happens it's law enforcement's job to CATCH them. Not beforehand, but AFTER a crime has been comitted.

You also might not know it, but the crime RATES in this country have been dropping for some time. Yes, there was a slight rise recently, due to economic hard times, but violent crime today is FAR lower than it was 20 years ago, and we have more people and worse economic times.

With that said, how come there are more cops than 20 years ago? How come cities like mine, which has lost half it's population in 30 years has just as many, if not more cops? Why do cops now dress in body armor and carry weapons Rambo would have envied?

I saw this written someplace, which puts it best:

"When the cops talk about the war on crime and the war on drugs, everyone needs to understand that they view us, the civilians, as the enemy."

Clearly there needs to be limits on what information that the government (remember ALWAYS that the police are an arm of the government) can collect and keep, and for how long, on someone not convicted or charged.

1. The best way to PREVENT crime is to be visible in places where crime is a possibility. This means VISIBLE patrols, not unmarked cars cowering in a blind curve on the highway that goes downhill looking for speeders.

A problem is that "sucess" for policing appears to have become judged in terms of arresting people, issuing tickets. As opposed to detering and preventing crime. It is also important to ensure that police officers are themselves never considered above the law. Otherwise it's too easy for a crook hide their crimes by becoming a police officer.

I've held the view that police officers are useless for quite some time now. I've never seen a cop deter a crime, I've never heard of one actually managing to do anything useful that a group of citizens could not have done equally as well. All cops really do is harass speeders and stalk teenagers around the mall in their off hours. They clean up the mess that's made after some punk splatters your brains all over the sidewalk for 17$, but that doesn't help you. We should liquidate the police force and dump the money into education in the inner cities, revitalization of the inner cities, and REAL urban renewal, not the "bulldoze the affordable housing and put up 1500$/month apartments" urban renewal.Maybe complete liquidation of the police force is too much.... Just remove the entire War on Drugs section, that should probably do it... Then you can legalize drugs and regulate and tax them... A ton more income right there...

Seriously, can you people please stop touting this. It brings to mind a quote by Mark Twain:

"There are three types of lies: Lies, damn Lies, and statistics"

In all actuality, law enforcement goes after the crimes people care about, and are afraid of

This does not include white collar crime. Think about it: Do you know what the crime rate is at your local college dorm? Probably around 100 percent (downloading mp3s is usually done illegally remember)

But, given the police forces are finite, would you rather see the energy devoted to busting these kids, or gang members?

So don't pretend that is is "racism" or "classism" that is causing society to go after people who: are lower income, young, a member of a minority group. It is the fact that we are more afraid of violent crime than white collar.

If you can prove that violent crime* is more prevelant in upper income brackets, I would like to see it.

---Lane

*Bear in mind however, that we even distinguish between violent crimes. We are much more afriad of say "stray bullet", "road rage" or "gang initiation" killings than "he killed his lover" types, because we are more afraid of people who kill other strangers (because that could be us) instead of someone who kills a person they know.

This is utter hogwash. You'd better check your facts. Try looking through some of the statistics and reports at The Bureau of Justice Statistics [usdoj.gov]. The opposite of your statement is demonstrated again and again.

Furthermore, many argue that not only economic minorities but, also racial minorities (so often the same) are unjustly labeled as the largest source of criminals. Again the statistics [usdoj.gov] say otherwise.

The fact is that economic and racial minorities produce a disproportionately high volume of criminals. Additionally, and interestingly to me, the minorities are statistically the largest group of victims of crime. That means that most criminal activity is perpetrated by minorities against other minorities. This has been case throughout history and is still true today.

Actually statistics show that there is actually a higher ratio of what would be crime in the high income bracket, it is just ignored.

This is utter hogwash. You'd better check your facts. Try looking through some of the statistics and reports at The Bureau of Justice Statistics. The opposite of your statement is demonstrated again and again.

Right, so he says crime is ignored in the upper bracket, you provide stats that show a large number of murderers are ethnic/economic minorities from the people who convict them...

If a crime was ignored by the authorities, how would it end up as part of the statistics? If the police are biased and bust minorities more than others, wouldn't that produce statistics that said most crimes are committed by minorities? Hmmm....

I look forward to seeing more of this American Dream. I will be sure to take notes and laugh. Just remember this... self-inflicted wounds deserve no pity.

OK, troll, I'll bite:

My great-grandparents came to the US with nothing. Two generations later, I am a highly-paid engineer, cruising Slashdot all day. Tell me, where else in the world is that possible? The American Dream is alive and well, which is why millions of foriegners flock to the US every year. Sure, the war on drugs is a load of crap, but here I can say that without fear of reprisal. I don't need your pity, and you can take your jealousy with it, thanks.

Well, that is true statistically but unless we are willing to do away with "innocent until proven guilty" then the fact that certain demographics are more likely to commit crimes doesn't have any bearing.

I can see both sides of the argument. Yes, we have the technology, both to be able to profile individuals with a reasonably high degree of accuracy and to be able to store those profiles and mine them when needed. In this way, the whole idea seems a good one because it would, ostensibly, make everyone safer.

On the other hand, no profiling is completely neutral. There is always some bias built into the system because it is based on probabilities. And in a system where "all men are created equal" one cannot assume that certain individuals based on their race, religion, creed, whathaveyou are more likely to commit crimes, no matter how well the math may work.

Personally, I'd rather give up a little security for more freedom. I don't think that, unless you are a declared suspect for a crime, you should be the subject of investigation.

And anyone who thinks that's a racist, bigoted comment is ignoring the sad truth of the ghetto. That doesn't mean crimes aren't commited at higher income brakets or whatnot, just that there is a higher chance of those crimes being commited in those lower income brackets including dem darr white folk, which isn't mentioned. And it's true in any country as well, where the minorities here aren't minorities there. South Africa is a prime example. The majority populace (which just happen to be black and poor) suffer from an extreemly high crime rate, therefor statistics say that the majority of citizens in the country are likely to commit a crime. It's not a surprise or even racist as the author vaguely implies, though neither does it apply to everybody, which is what worries me about this system a bit.

Sure it might be legal but that doesn't make it wise. What I'd like to know is where do the people come from who implement these policies? I think Arthur Clarke was right when, in "The Songs of Distant Earth" IIRC, he suggested that anyone who wanted a political office was, by definition, emotionally unsuited to having that office.

<SARCASM>
How else are they supposed to get you off death row 18 years after they coerce you to confess to a crime you did not commit [nytimes.com]? Can't you see this is for your own good? We have to choose between the lesser of two evils:

Yeah, and the FBI has a file on me. They have a file on you, most likely. Before you accuse me of having a tinfoil hat, think abouth this: the FBI just bought EVERYONE'S credit report. So now you have an FBI file if you have a credit history with the "big three" U.S. credit agencies. Hey, that might come in handy someday. Personally, I don't like the way all this is heading.

That wouldn't work - everybody knows politicians almost never get sent to prision.

A must beter choice that would directly impact in the really dangerous criminals would be a list of software developers.

Yep, start with them Open Source Developers - everybody knows thei're all hackers that just haven't been caught in the act yet (dirty basterds). Since hacking has bigger sentences than murder or rape, hacking must be worse.

Officials at the New York Stock Exchange refused comment as to whether they would pressure the administrators of the Delaware database to include CEOs of large corporations in their "future criminal" database.

As of press time, rumors that the MPAA and RIAA had sent representatives to the Wilmington police department with lists of local computer owners were unconfirmed.

Lots of other professions speculate on compilied data. The/. posting here implies that they are guessing completely, but in fact they are really just taking note of people that are hanging in shady areas, loitering, with no real reason to be there.

If the majority of those people end up commiting a crime, and they see a pattern, I see no problem with getting familiar with those faces in case anything ever does happen.

Now, it would be funny to see some CEO's pop up on a fbi list.... this ceo has aurthur anderson consulting as his auditor, a seemingly inflated stock price... hes probably laundering, lets keep an eye on him!

I see no problem with getting familiar with those faces in case anything ever does happen.

Here's why I think this is a massive, huge problem: a cop "gets familiar" with my face because I went to a club in a bad part of town, and then is predisposed to assume I'm guilty of a crime on a later date. Let's say YOU are in the database. Let's say you've never been arrested or convicted of ANY crime. And let's say suddenly you're pulled in for a crime you didn't commit. You want to try to convince that cop you're innocent? How good are you going to feel while the cop sits there saying, "uh-huh, sure buddy. Look, it's in the computer and so we know your bad news."

The only reason you think this is a good idea is because you think you won't get put on a list like this. Which you probably won't, because I'm guessing that you are affluent and white.

they are really just taking note of people that are hanging in shady areas, loitering, with no real reason to be there.

This is crap. The reason these people are hanging out in "shady" areas is because they live there!. There only crime so far is being born poor. And the unfortunate people are being set up for a fall before they've even done anything. Don't you think life sucks enough for the poor in this country without the police harrasing them for no reason?

Now, it would be funny to see some CEO's

You know what, this isn't really a joking matter. The fact is that the rich and affluent are not ever going to find them selves on this list, which is exactly why it is wrong. Despite studies showing the rich white kids do drugs at the same or higher rates than then minority counterparts, you can bet that hanging around a prep school won't get you on this list.

This same information would be in a policeman's notebook. "Stopped John Smith, 123 Main St, at 9th & Vine for loitering 2002-08-25 23:18"

What's to stop the police officer from making up the data? What if my car spashes some mud onto a police car just as it leaves the car wash, and the officer spots my license plate and wants to exact a small revenge. He files a report that I was seen giving a known drug dealer a small package at 123 Main St., and, by chance, my only alibi is that I was at home alone reading a book.Next thing I know, I'm being questioned about a drug deal in front of the Live TV News camera crew.

I really have no experience with courts, lawyers, judges, etc. How does an average citizen's testimony really stack up against that of a police officer, who may be lying?

The problem is that there is significant overlap between groups, for example in an area that has poor black population, the biggest contributing factor with regard to crime is poverty, but the police can't tell that you're poor by looking at you. It's very easy, however, for them to tell that you're black.

Most crime happens in poor, minority-dominated neighborhoods. It only makes sense to increase the police presence in those areas, through random patrols and targetted surveillance of possible hotspots and hotheads.

The people who live in those neighborhoods have a right to live in safety. If this can effectively retard the development of criminals, isn't it worth it?

This why we have affirmative action programs like "Midnight Basketball". When there is a possibility of someone going down the path of crime, it is much cheaper to stop them when they haven't done anything than it is to incarcerate them later.

This why we have affirmative action programs like "Midnight Basketball".
Which, to the best of my knowledge has never been shown scientifically to prevent crime, criminal development, or truancy.

But more importantly, think about what this. A database is a big collection of information - or maybe not so big (yet). Lets say they have a crime comitted and no suspects. They have a descripting "medium height, medium build, dark complextion". Okay, so they first go to the "pre-offender" database. Run a simple SQL statement against the database. "SELECT FROM PRE-FELONS WHERE..." etc etc.

Exactly how is that not a search of the "pre-criminals" is beyond me. We are all guaranteed to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". What does that mean? Is your picture, your demographics and non-criminal history not your "effects", not your "person"?

The right to live in safety is not absolute. What is absolute is the Bill of Rights. What is absolute is the fundamental protection that all Americans enjoy from persecution.

We can do a lot of things to retard development of criminals, but most of them have higher costs than benefits.

The easiest way to cure world hunger is to kill all the hungry people. The easiest way to cure crime is to kill all the criminals. Does that mean these are routes we should pursue?

The fact of the matter is that the government (and frankly, anyone) can have a file on anyone, and against this there is no law, Constitutional or otherwise. The only restriction is that non-public information cannot be gained without a warrant issued by a judge. Any data collection that goes on in these neighborhoods is not done by entering these peoples' homes and searching for incriminating evidence. Rather, they are picking up on actions like teenagers hanging out late in alleyways or empty parking lots or who are seen interacting with known criminals. In other words, there are logical reasons to put them on the list.

your picture, your demographics and non-criminal history not your "effects", not your "person"?

No. If you are in a public place, then you have no privacy. Your picture may be taken (I like smiling in other tourists' vacation photos:-), your voice may be recorded, or any host of things that are easily accessible to those around you. You are secure in your home, papers, effects, and on your person. Once you step outside your house, your identity becomes public information.

There is nothing here that is either odious or illegal. Think of it as a return to the beat cop era where the cop knew everyone in the neighborhood. This list isn't a deterrent in itself. It is simply a means to deduce where extra policing (in the full sense of the term) is needed.

Most crime happens in poor, minority-dominated neighborhoods. It only makes sense to increase the police presence in those areas, through random patrols and targetted surveillance of possible hotspots and hotheads.

The worst part of America winning the Cold War is that whenever insane shit like profiling potential criminals happens we can no longer point to the practice of show me your papers in the Iron Curtain or Soviet states to show why it is against the very principles of democracy the US is based upon. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I used to live in one of those poor, crime ridden, minority dominated neighborhoods a few years ago and this adverserial us vs. them mentality between the police and members of the community was a major problem which is excarberated by public opinion that encourages treating poor, non-whites as a criminal underclass as default behavior of the police.

WhileI agree with the idea of prevention there is a massive difference between this program and Midnight Basketball. Midnight Basketball, Head Start and other similar programs give people in disadvantaged areas something legal and safe to do, and help them to be healthy and law abiding. These programs give them an incentive to do better and aid in acheiving it.

Keeping a list of people "likely to commit crimes" does not help to prevent crimes it merely provides the police with a list of the "Usual Suspects" that they can attempt to match with any crime that they get. Anyone unfortunate enough to be on this list can look forward to being targeted for quesitoning or just systematic harrasment whenever a crime occurs probably making it more likely that they will commit crimes in the future. After all, if the police already think that you are a criminal even if you have never been convited of a crime, and treat you like one, where's the incentive to behave like a decent person?

Take a look at This American Life's [thislife.org] episode entitled Perfect Evidence [thislife.org] Act one has a story about what happened when the Chicago pilice force turned to a profile, and "The Usual Suspects" in order to solve a crime and the price that the innocent paid.

The real purpose of this kind of database is NOT to incriminate the not guilty, or to place random people into the database just for the hell of it. The point is to decrease the amount of time spent investigating crimes.

I'm sure law enforcement has a better reason than "he's black!" to put these people into a database. They have most likely done research, gathered the names and faces of people who are running with gangs or others who have committed crimes. If you put *everyone* into the database, you lose the effectiveness of the database, and therefore it's worthless to the investigators. This is specifically designed to save money by cutting the time it takes to investigate crimes.

This was done against the mafia years ago. Not only do you watch the criminals, but you have to watch who the criminals are close to. If you do not, you will effectively lose the battle.

Since you decide to take a personal shot at my ethnicity, which you do not even know, you deserve to be taught a lesson. Learn it well. (I'll refrain some calling you a racial slur, as you have done me)

What did Amadou Diallo do when the cops approached him? Did he run? Yes! Did he answer questions? No! Why? Because he was an illegal citizen. Did he commit a crime? Yes! Did he deserve what he got? NO! Was it a mistake? YES! Do the individuals involved deserve to be punished? YES! Do ALL officers deserve to be punished? NO!

African Americans use the same strategies that some cops use on the job, this is called stereotyping.... or PROFILING. Some cops may go after a guy because he's black, but some black guys may attack a cop because he wears a badge? Is that fair? NO!

Have all African Americans committed crimes? Of course, the answer is NO. So, is it right to stereotype? No, it's not. So then WHY do you stereotype against cops? Has ever cop beaten an african american without provocation? No! Does that mean cops deserve that stereotype? I'll let you answer that one.....

If you do not say 'NO' to that last question, I'd suggest you have some serious personality issues that have to do primarily with self esteem. I suggest you get counseling.

And guess what, African Americans are not the victims of the white bigots. African Americans are victims of their own culture, and until you realize that, you will never progress in society as a culture. The perfect example of this is Tupac Shakur who wanted everyone to believe he was a "thug" growing up on the streets, when he really was a middle-class kid living in a gated community in the middle of Virginia.

I invite you to read a book written by the Author John H. McWhorter called "Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America" This book can be found on Barnes & Noble (www.bn.com). The author, an African American liguistics professor at a university, talks about his experiences as an african american growing up in this "racist" country and how he dealt with it. He also states how he deals with African American children who attend his class. You should seriously read this book as it illustrates that ONLY African Americans are responsible for the way they feel in the American Society, and how views like your own not only stop the movement towards racial equality, but actually move it backwards.

This is probably a response to racial profiling. They've been told it's wrong to suspect people on the basis of race, so they're instead making a specific list of people they think or suspicious.

With any database like this, major issues include how people are added and how the information is used.

The article mentions that many of those added were stopped for loitering but not charged. Hence, they've broken some minor town ordinance, so while they don't have a regular police record, they had a reason to add them.

First off, if you are going to keep tabs on potential criminals, you should do so on the basis of who comitts most crimes. Minorities, young people and poor people (often the same group) commit many of the crimes. Of course, the other major criminal group wealthy white males between the ages of 45 and 65. So if we are going to track these types of pre-criminals, we should do so fairly and consistently.

But secondly and more importantly, this is not legal. This is a pure violation of several aspects of the bill of rights and the Constitution at large. This violates due process, this violates a persons right to be free from warantless searches (their identity and "person" will be searched everytime a crime is comitted without a clear suspect!), and this violates the much ignored 14th amendment which pleges "equal protection under the law".

I imagine now that this is public knowledge on a wider scale that it will be struck down.

Due process grants you not being held without knowing your charges and having a quick and timely judicial process. When/If these people are arrested, they will still be given that right.
No, these people receive "less process", and less protection from police. Everytime a crime in a certain area is comitted they will be instant suspects. The cops will first go to them, and ask where they were, what they were doing, establish alibi's, etc. This is a removal of due process. Everyone else will have more protection - less interference from police - simply because they are not on the list. This also rolls into the 14th amendment arguments.

No unauthorized searches guarantees no law entity can come into your house (or any kind of domicile) without a warrant which they must show cause in order to get. Being around drug dealers/convicted felons is a reason, as is having previously broken the law (loitering is breaking the law in some places).
First off, many of these people are unconvicted but once arrested. This is unacceptable. Arrested does not mean "guilty". Being arrested does not make you legal suspect in a later unrelated case. Its called "prior bad acts" and its inadmissable most of the time - especially if you werent convicted for anything. Second, you are protected against searches of your "person and effects". A complete description, demographics, photo, vital statistics and possibly a blood/urine/DNA sample inconjunction with fingerprinting are your "effects". Everytime they search that DB they performing a wholesale search of your private data. This is the same as rounding up 200 people and methodically manually searching them. The fact that it takes place in 0.1 seconds makes no differnece.

I am making a case that because the police will pre-suspect them in all crimes, and therefore target them again and again for investigation, searches, and questioning they have lost rights. These people are non-convicted citizens.

Taking pictures of people stopped for loitering. How low tech. These days, more and more DMV's are going with computerized drivers licenses including pictures. Now all they have to do is to use the dl database to compile information based on address (since location is obviously an important criteria for them) and then just pull the pictures. This could be done without anyone (i.e. the public) knowing. Heck, they could be doing it now.

Now true, this would be easy to defeat by providing false info, or getting phoney licenses, both easy enough, but the man would still be able to get a large db up and going quickly and quietly.

However, if a court of law finds that a *reasonable* person would consider this a violation of someone's civil rights, then the official responsible can be sued for civil rights violations and cannot claim qualified immunity.

"I hereby inform you that the actions you are taking are violating my civil rights. If you do not cease immediately, I will bring charges against you and you cannot claim qualified immunity, because as of know you are aware of the fact that you are voilating my rights."

Many of the people whose photos have been taken were stopped briefly for loitering and let go.

``Loitering'' basically means the cop thought you looked out of place. If that's all it takes to be branded as a suspect--and, don't forget, a suspect is somebody who's guilty of some terrible crime but just hasn't been caught yet--then you better not get caught staring at a cop's jackboots.

IMO, if these people are being treated as criminals without actually committing a crime, they might as well commit crimes. I don't know about you, but if I were singled out as a potential criminal, my first order of business would be to remove all doubt by killing everybody dear to the person that lets this continue.

These people are NOT having their rights infringed on. I can make a database of any group of people I want...hell, I can go through the phonebook, find out where the person lives and go take a picture of them AND IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL. All this organization is doing is keeping track of people that have been caught in 'questionable activities' and making a list.

If these peoples' civil rights are infringed upon, please, get up in arms...I'll join right along with you. But if the police are just compiling a database, not performing searches, pulling them over unnecessarily (note: I am not referring to racial profiling) or taking them into jail without cause, I see no problem with this. It could, in fact, be a good way to keep an eye on potential trouble makers. If the cops checked what these individuals were doing on a weekly, monthly, yearly basis, it would keep some innocents from getting harmed.

Remember, these are not random picks from the phone book...there's a reason why these people are in this database. Maybe they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but doubtful...the majority were probably in the process of or about to commit crimes (drugs, vandalism, murder) when they were picked up.

--trb

...and to anyone with that "Those who give up a little liberty to get safety..." line in your sig, remember NO LIBERTIES have been sacrificed here

These people are NOT having their rights infringed on. I can make a database of any group of people I want...hell, I can go through the phonebook, find out where the person lives and go take a picture of them AND IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL. All this organization is doing is keeping track of people that have been caught in 'questionable activities' and making a list.

Right. But you're a citizen, and this is the government. There are a large number of things that you can do in your free time, but could not do while acting as a police officer.

If these peoples' civil rights are infringed upon, please, get up in arms...I'll join right along with you. But if the police are just compiling a database, not performing searches, pulling them over unnecessarily (note: I am not referring to racial profiling) or taking them into jail without cause, I see no problem with this.

Um, then what are they using this database for? The article very notably does not say. So long as the police officers use the database for nothing more than... an office betting pool, I can't imagine a legal use.

It could, in fact, be a good way to keep an eye on potential trouble makers. If the cops checked what these individuals were doing on a weekly, monthly, yearly basis, it would keep some innocents from getting harmed.

See... that's what I mean when I say I can't imagine a legal use. That would be *fucked* *up*.

Remember, these are not random picks from the phone book...there's a reason why these people are in this database. Maybe they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but doubtful...the majority were probably in the process of or about to commit crimes (drugs, vandalism, murder) when they were picked up.

Right. So if police use this technique for *all* types of criminals, then there will be no "equal protection under the law" gripes.

--trb...and to anyone with that "Those who give up a little liberty to get safety..." line in your sig, remember NO LIBERTIES have been sacrificed here

Good point. None of *my* liberties have been sacrificed... because I'm well off, white, and I live in the suburbs.

The Denver police had spy files. When the public found out about it there was outcry. They label groups such as the Quakers "extremist organizations" in their files. The law abiding people in the files were finally allowed to view them after much wrangling, but the city kept an "archival copy" of the files for "archival" purposes.

The "future criminals" list, according to the article, is being collected by an anti-drug squad.

Yet another example of how absolutely disgusting the "war on drugs" has become in this country. They're paying a group of policemen to spy on ordinary citizens because they might smoke pot some day, or try a handful of mushrooms.

When can we get these retards back on the street fighting actual crimes? (Actually, do we even need the services of these particular retards anymore?)

Does anyone actually support the war on drugs anymore? If so, what are they smoking?

The war on drugs:1)I support the current war on drugs.2)I support the legalization of a few drugs.3)I support the legalization of most drugs.4)I support the legalization of all drugs.5)I support cowboyneal's drugs.

This is nothing more than an extension of what is already being done in the law enforcement communities. In smaller communities, like the one where I used to live, police could simply memorize the names of the folks that they suspected of being "on a bad path."

As an example, I had a buddy that had a string of DUIs and got his license suspended. He was later pulled over by a policeman because his license plate light wasn't bright enough (or some other excuse) and given yet another hefty fine for driving without a license. He couldn't believe that the police would pull him over for such a piddly deal, especially considering the amount of traffic that has faulty lights on their vehicles (stand on a streetcorner and count sometime, you will be amazed). It goes without saying that years of alcohol abuse had severely effected my friend's thought processes. The policeman hadn't pulled him over because of a minor infraction. The policeman had pulled him over because he recognized the automobile!

In small towns police do this all of the time. They know who the criminals are, and they know that a quick sweep of everyone they are keeping tabs on (who isn't currently locked up) will generally net them their criminal. Of course, small town dwellers tend to understand that when the go out "in public" they are quite likely to be recognized by the people they encounter. We realize that none of us have a right to anonymity.
What these big city policeman are doing is simply this same principle on a larger scale. They want to be able to "remember" the people (as a group) that they thought were suspicious. Now, whether this is right or not is hard to say. All I can say is that profiling potential criminals in this matter has been working quite well in small communities since the beginning of time.
All things considered, I would strongly encourage folks that live in this part of the U.S. to take care to not dress like a stereotypical drug dealer.

I don't think you realize just how much money law enforcement agencies rake in because of the war on drugs. Due to blatantly unconstitutional seizure laws, police, FBI, DEA, etc. can seize property deemed "contributory" to alleged drug crimes, or bought with the proceeds of alleged drug trafficking. In other words, if they accuse you of hiding drugs in your car or house, they can take that property away from you, without a trial and often without a warrant. They are also under no obligation to return said property even if the original charges are dropped or if you are acquited. Any cash found during a drug search will also be seized, as will large enough amounts of money found during other procedures (i.e. if they find a suitcase full of money in your car during a traffic stop, or if you're found boarding a plane with lots of cash, they might very well take it from you).

Legal battles to get property returned are difficult, costly, with no guarantees of winning. And if you do win, the cost of getting the property back may be more than it was worth in the first place.

The cash and proceeds from auctioning off all that seized property go directly towards funding law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, county, and municipal levels. In fact, the money from the seizures is often figured directly into the budgets of departments, meaning that they will budgeted less taxpayer money because they are expected to pull in as much cash from seizures as they did last year. If they don't, their department will face a budget crunch, so it is directly beneficial to police to seize as much property as they can, in order to pay for new uniforms, sidearms, squad cars, radios, etc. Not to mention all the perks enjoyed by the big bosses, including sports cars, houses, boats, and more.

All thanks to the wonderful "war on drugs". It will never end because the people in power personally gain so much from it.

They know they're not ever going to be able to do this - but do you really think anybody who's livelihood depends on being paid to continually fight this war is going to come out and say, "You know.. we could really be spending this money somewhere else"?

I know it's just TV and hence proves nothing, but I like the words that Aaron Sorkin put in the mouth of the President on The West Wing:

"I inherited the war on drugs from a President who inherited it from a President who inherited it from a President before that. I'm not a hundred percent sure who we're fighting but I know we're not winning. Ten years ago we spent five billion dollars fighting drugs and we did such a good job that last year we spent 16 billion. Sixty percent of federal prisoners are in jail on drug charges as opposed to two and a half percent that are there for violent crime. We imprison a higher percentage of our citizens than Russia did under Communism and South Africa did under apartheid. Somewhere between 50 and 85% of the prison population has a drug or alcohol abuse problem. We've tried 'Just Say No', I don't think it's going to work.

George Orwell's "Thought Police" seem to be a step closer. Are we going to be arresting potential hackers because someone is computer literate? How about arresting potential rapists because the person is about to hit their sexual prime?

What are the requirments for entry into this exclusive database? Income level? High incidents of arrest of your immediate family? High intelligence? Low intelligence? Neighborhood you grew up in?

Take this a step further: Just enter EVERYONE into the thing and link it with our upcoming national ID system. Now everyone is a suspicious person until they prove themselves innocent.

...and my family, friends, colleagues, and shrinks still can't understand why I'm paranoid. I should have gone into the blinder industry -- I coulda made a fortune from a government contract, handing them out to the public.

This is not some Orwellian Big-Brother program. This is an effort by a local police agency to apply pressure to street-level drug dealers to push them out of the area. It's a desperate move that will unlikely halt drug use or sales, but may shuffle it off the regular corners for a short time. The article says police have been temporarily detaining loiterers and photographing them, then releasing them and posting their pictures on the interweb. This reminds me of how people in one community who were bothered by men cruising a particular public restroom in a park for anonymous sex started shooting video of the outside of the restroom and showed the video on public access TV. The slight difference here it that the TV show never said, "These guys are having gay sex or will have gay sex." It left it up to the viewers to infer. In the wilmington police operation, they're saying these people are likely to commit a crime, which is really hard to back up.

Perhaps drawing attention to these loiterers will get their parents involved and maybe they won't prove the cops right.

They're just crusing high crime areas (where the probabability is greater that a resident will be involved in criminal activity), then they find someone who's doing anything that's even remotely in violation of the law (loitering for instance), then adding them to the probability list.

And of course, they cite numbers of "successful guesses" but fail to mention how many misses. Its not necessarily meaningful. Very VERY few people are completely 100% in compliance with the law. I wouldn't go so far to say that someone who occasionally speeds is to be considered a criminal, but if you look at the teeth many laws have, especially copyright law, many of us are in violation to the degree that we could spend many thousands of years in prison and be fined billions of dollars, should they bring those cases to court and press the maximums.

6.6 Million americans (about 3%) are currently under supervision of a correctional institution, either in prison, or on parole or probation. And that's RIGHT NOW. That's a significant percentage of the population. To drive around someplace where that percentage is signficantly higher, it wouldn't be terribly unlikely to get a 10% matchup with pure guessing by pointing out random people who will one day end up in trouble with the law. To tout statistical probabilities as indications that this system is any more useful than pursusing criminals after the crime has been commmited is nothing more than a lazy effort to create the impression that something is being done about the "problem".

What is the point of this anyway? So someone's name is on a "future criminals" list. Does that make any difference when a trial comes up? I suppose if there's a murder, and one of the suspects happens to be on the list, that might be something, but if the only critiera for being added to the list was the fact that you once jaywalked 5 years ago, there would be little grounds to take it seriously, and defense lawyers would have a field day if someone was held longer than necessary based only on such inconsequencial evidence.

This couldn't possibly be Constitutional, could it? It seems to me that by invading the privacy of those who "may" break the law, they are violating Equal Protection under the Law. It's also unethical. Just because a person comes from a high risk crime group, doesn't mean that the person in question is going to commit a crime. What, are they going to put every single male inner city kid in this database, along with probably 80% of the kids in the suburbs?

That, and isn't this collection of data an unlawful search? Especially when the person in question has no criminal record?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping tabs on people who have previously broken the law, as unfortunately many felons are repeat offenders. However, there's no way you can convince me that keeping a database of people who "may be inclined" to commit a crime is a fair idea.

Besides, let's be honest, we've all though about committing a crime. Who hasn't wanted to beat the snot out of that jerk that just cut you off in traffic?

Using the logic of this, then the next step is that everyone with a driver's license should be tagged in a database as a possible assault perpetrator.

Illustrating absurdity by being absurd:

Most serial killers are middle class white men in their 20's who have trouble with relationships with women. DEAR GOD! SLASHDOT IS FULL OF POSSIBLE SERIAL KILLERS!

"most of the 200 people included in the file have been from... high-crime neighborhoods."

What, you mean there's a correllation between high-crime neighbourhoods and a likelihood of more crime being committed there. This is an outrage. I demand that zero-crime neighbourhoods get equal representation as places likely to have crime in the future.

Yes, it is very unfortunate that minorities in this, and most, countries tend to be in poorer neighbourhoods and that those neighbourhoods are consequently more likely to suffer from crime. However, as far as I'm aware, the list contains those individuals for reasons other than race. Playing the race card simply serves to add an association that wasn't being made before. Haven't we learned yet that the over-the-top-PC brigade do more harm than good?

After the Columbine Shooting the FBI posted a survey that would help profile a potential school shooter. We all remember that list, it was on/. after all. The list with things like:

Locking your door from the rest of the family.Not labeling Floppy disks,Being the Social Outcast of the school.

Hell I'd warrant that most of us would have been profiled as a potential threat based of our answers to that list. Odds are that at least some of us would fit that list as well.

What should really chap our collective asses is the blurb I heard on the Jim Gearhart show on 101.5 in New Jersey. That this law is constitutional because they say it is. If this is a true statement and not FUD from what boils down to a Rush Limbaugh-ish show, then we're really going to hell in a handbasket. If they can ignore the constitution based on whim then we're (not to put a fine point on it) fucked.

What is going to happen when this person goes for a job interview and he answers that he has no criminal record and then the employer and sees a "Future Criminal" tag? IF he going to be forced to work fast food and live off of welfare even though his record is clean?

Honestly, It's become a matter of 'when' and not 'if' for the revolution hasn't it?

Now that the officals in Wilmington are using the steerotypes to decide who is going to become a criminal, they need to expand the number of steerotypes beyond "Criminal Negros". Let's see There is a steerotype of "Pigs" who ready to assault defendants, so they need to add the Wilmington Police Force to thier database. There is a steerotype of "Crooked Politicans", so everyone who ever ran for office in Wilmington needs to be added.

If passed, this will mandate a year of military training for nearly all "selective service" age males (and any females for volunteer - is it just me or is this an amusing chauvenistic anachronism for a modern law?...).

It's far from being an outright "draft", but it holds a disturbing (and on-topic) implication.

I seem to recall that when someone begins US military service, that they are subjected to a variety of examinations, including, I assume, psychiatric ones. Of course, the military keeps records of the results.

Therefore...this bill is basically a convenient way to ensure that the US Federal Government would from that day forth be able to "profile" effectively every male US citizen as they hit voting age. It'd be a trivial matter, in a technical sense, to automate the "picking out" of any results that are deemed "worrisome" and the reports shared with law enforcement agencies everywhere...

I'm not certain that's the main PURPOSE of the bill, but I don't doubt that aspect of it would appeal to current AND FUTURE executive administrations in the US....

So there's a published list, even if it's only published to cops, saying "This person is likely to commit a crime". Leave aside the obvious civil liberties issues for the moment - this seems like simple libel to me. At least for the Usual Suspects who haven't yet been arrested for things, this doesn't sound like investigation of a crime or other legitimate police function that's protected by laws protecting government officials doing their official jobs. Of course, most of the people on the list probably don't have the resources to fight that kind of libel suit, but it'd be fun to get the ACLU or some other pro bono support for it.

./ has already done this. (see poll) [slashdot.org] Dont think they dont trace post submission IP addr to ISP. Before long it will be commonplace for a business to be able to force an ISP to reveal who their customers are. They will soon be coming for you, you filthy bastard!!

I'm not advocating what they've done, but I think I know why. By having a list of potentials, they can narrow their initial search for a suspect by checking out likely entries from the database. That's EXACTLY what the police do with people who HAVE been convicted of a crime. When a new crime takes place, they look at known criminals first. In this case, they've just extended the list to people who they think MIGHT commit a crime.

The same way we can say that John Ashcroft "might" have taken bribes from senior Al-Quaida members. He might have. And he might not have. Both are truthful statements, yet neither one reveals anything about whether or not John Ashcroft actually did take bribes.

What I find disturbing is that now the FBI is arresting people who "might have been intending to plan to commit terrorist acts". Not for actually trying to carry out terrorist acts, not for actually planning terrorist acts, but because they thought these people might, at some time in the future, plan to commit terrorist acts.

The same way we can say that John Ashcroft "might" have taken bribes from senior Al-Quaida members.

How about: ``It is not [yet] proven that John Ashcroft took bribes from senior Al-Quaida members. ''.

It is not yet proven that the elements of that list are criminals, but the cops are working on it. It is not yet proven that the cops will use the list to find easy marks to frame for crimes that need a quick solution.

There are two problems with that approach to police work. First, there is the fact the these shady characters will be going to jail for someone else's offence instead of their own. Second, the real offenders are still out on the street. When you slap some small-time pot-smoker/dealer into jail for a murder he didn't commit, you've left a murder running loose. Of course, it isn't yet proven that the cops will be using the data base that way.

Look at Steven Hatfill, He was the only one the FBI leaked [yahoo.com] about being the [not yet] proven Anthrax killer.

He lost his 2 jobs due to FBI questioning his employers, the FBI has yet to confirm or deny he is the person responsible.

So, This guy a guy who works for PROTECTING us against terrorist attacks, a loyal American far above the average Joe, and can have his life ruined. The average Joe should be shaking in his boots about being considered a criminal.

How was this guy Identified? He is an expert in his field, and peers said he was the most knowledgeable about bio weapons. (Criminal to be an expert?)

How many of us are experts in the tech field? You have the skills to be a black hat hacker. Hopefully nobody points a finger at you...-Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth. - Lillian Hellman (1907 - 1984)

This database sounds like a bad idea simply becauseof the precedent. How long before it becomes statewideor national in scope? How long before innocent peopleget their name on it by mistake, or for malicious reasons?Having said that, there must be an unofficial such list inevery precinct in the country. A good police department has to keep track ofquestionable behavior and likely suspects. It's a reality of the job.A cop walking the beat has such a list in his head, no doubt about it.They should have been more discreet, in this particular case.